I've never watched a film and never known what to make of it before. Even Donnie Darko made sense whilst watching it, on most levels.

Part of me wants to shoot the film down for the horrible acting in parts, unintelligible dialogue, unoriginal content within scenes, a massively fluctuating tone throughout, irrelevant storylines, Hugo Weaving practically re-quoting Agent Smith lines, and a fairly simple story made almost impossible to follow by horrible editing and storytelling.

Not to mention the amount of characters; Is that Hugo Weaving in drag? Why is he in drag? Is that the older version of this character... or a version of the character in a parallel universe?... or another character altogether?... or are they simply re-using that actor for convenience. Should I have to be asking myself so many questions to simply follow a storyline in a film?

Another part of me actually enjoyed the film for what it was. The film creates almost inescapable intrigue whilst watching, a sense of escapism, has great cinematography, some great characters, and some very memorable scenes. This, for me, is what films should be about.

I think I need to watch it again, but then should I have to? Should some films need to be watched twice?... Is this a failing of the film? Is the fact it's a hard film to follow a failing in the audience or the director? I've always stuck to the philosophy that it's always the fault of the director, but in this case I can't help but think it was the director's sole intention to confuse.